And according to the developer, record-breaking prices for the neighborhood of over $1,300 per square foot have been achieved for top-end units on the upper floors of the Hayes Valley development, units with outdoor space, views and parking.

At the same time, the list price for a least one of the lower floor units in the building without parking was recently adjusted downward “to target a more value conscious buyer” and better “match the market.”

Originally priced at $995,000, a listing for 8 Octavia #404 was quietly withdrawn from the MLS in July and the 1,001-square-foot two-bedroom was re-listed anew for $939,000, or $938 per square foot, last month.

The first closings and move-ins for 8 Octavia are currently slated to occur in October.

We walk by this on the way to my kids’ school. I don’t think it’s that bad. Neither am I super impressed by it. Regardless, compared to the vacant bum pit that was there for the last 50 years, it is a massive improvement. Glad to see life really springing up around Octavia Blvd. $1300/sf is psycho (it is, after all, an intersection between effectively two freeways), but I’ve long ceased to be amazed by psycho prices in SF for mediocre places and neighborhoods.

Also, this is not “Hayes Valley” to anyone but a realtor. And to extend the theme above, it makes me chuckle that a developer is over-selling the idea of being in “Hayes Valley” given that this would have been far from a selling point only about 15 years ago. The gentrification of this city is astonishing.

Isn’t this really Market Street, at the entrance of the freeway? With a constant bum on the median (in both directions) begging for money. This is a big improvement in this section of Market Street which suffered from decades of under-utilization. But I think the prices will come down quite a bit. Sorry for the reality check, developers and marketers.

God, the obsession with not wanting to look at homeless people by commenters on this site never ceases to amaze me. If you want to live in some fascist suburban Utopia move somewhere else!

On a separate note I drive by this building twice a day and (as a non-architect ) find its facades a lot more interesting and even nice looking than a lot of the crap you see being built in the city these days. Much more bearable than the hideous atrocity of Vida SF at 22nd and mission which several of the architects on the site seem to think is beautiful.

How is it “fascist suburban Utopia” to not want to have to step over human feces and urine, or to be able to use public facilities (like BART) without almost retching from the stink? To be able to bring friends and relatives around the city with pride, not constant apologies? Frankly, even to be able to walk around safely – I have had to go to the emergency room once due to an out-of-the-blue assault by homeless people, and they’ve attacked our dogs while out on walks (once a man leapt out of the bushes and started trying to kick the dogs, who hadn’t even known he was there). Are my husband and I “fascists” because we walk our block of Funston and Park Presidio once a week, picking up trash (much of which comes from homeless people)?

no kidding. the only one with any real thought or design originality. i don’t see any other projects with as complex of a facade. it might be ugly to some people but it’s the best performing ugly building they’ve ever seen.

Thanks Jill for that well thought out response! Have you considered why it might have such large fins on it? They allow for privacy with floor to ceiling windows, control of daylighting, thermal comfort, and an ever changing dynamic facade. Not many projects can say that. It’s a pretty successful building, really.

no one said we prefer an empty lot instead of this? Are we not allowed to comment when we think a building is hideous.

But to your point, I would gladly mow this building down to get the central freeway back. removing it was one of the worst SF transportation errors and there are many. It is more difficult to get to the freeway in this city than any other in the country. Ocatvia blvd is an unmitigated traffic disaster.

the central freeway traffic sucked too, its removal is not much different than the way traffic flows now, saying it’s more difficult to get to the freeway in this city than any other is hogwash, and Octavia blvd is trafficky, but it flows if you are simply patient. pretty much every single thing you said was hyperbole + incorrect except for the fact that sure, it’s fine to express opinion.

Its super sleek. Love it. I love how people in SF are too opiniated, perhaps a but jealous. They love to talk sh#t, #smug. I can’t afford it now, but it’s a great addition to the area. The price is not insane for the market, but if there’s a new foreclosure period, I hope I can buy it for a bit less that current price per sq ft.

I feel like it’s 2007 and anything new will sell for the price record set up by the last project.

That said, what would stop the current euphoria happening in SF? Tech crash? Unlikely for another 2 years. Fed tightening? They are smarter than the euro-austerians though the USD is going up a bit. Nah, I think only a big geopolitical event would shake this market.

Yea, it’s pretty amusing. I doubt I’ll be here for more than another 2 years I’d guess, but as a renter just looking at this market makes me chuckle. I mean, when a big law attorney and a private school teacher that collectively make $240k a year are looking at houses in the extreme southern unfashionable neighborhoods out of necessity, it’s probably time to move.

@Bob: You must be pretty junior if you two are only making that much. And you likely have massive school loans if you are like most junior big law attorneys. That may help provide some color on your finances and why you are looking where you are looking.

You will take a (pretty substantial) pay cut in both of those places and have to take another bar exam. Not for me, but ymmv. Also have heard pretty horrendous things about Austin (e.g., traffic) lately, so careful with that choice.

Ha. You will not be able to save enough in “only a few years.” (Assuming you want to have at least $500k cash first.) Think in terms of 10-15 years down the line. You’ll be fine then if you’re still at a firm.

@bob
we’re a 2 professional couple that didn’t buy until 2009 in our 40’s. we had school debt to pay off and prices just seemed unreal so we saved and invested elsewhere.
we didn’t have historic low interest rates and the rent to buy calculation always said rent (rents were so much lower even though we moved every 2-4 years; we never paid more then $2350 for a 3 bedroom unit on potrero hill). so we sat on the sidelines while friends bought and traded up and a few overbought and lost much of their net worth in 2008-9.
now our duplex in noe has tenants paying most of the mortgage, refinanced to be paid off before we retire. we’re up 3 dollars for every dollar spent on remodeling.
if you can hang around and save, i believe you will have a chance to do the same. for us it was more luck then timing but chance favors the prepared. we also never looked at single family housing and sought out income property which a lot of buyers avoid. even duplexes which bypass condo conversion rules sell at discounts to SFHs and condos.
good luck.

Same for me. It took me 4 years of waiting for prices to fall before buying in 2010.
2008 was a bit disheartening to say the least, with national horror stories that kept being contradicted locally. But the big reward came in 2009-2011. I think you are in the right segment to catch good deals if you can wait for the next dip.

Yeah, that’s right when we bought our place (Feb. 2012). Appraisals are fine for what they are, but no way prices are up 80% since then. 40% maybe, perhaps even 50% on some low-end properties. Which is still a monster increase. $1 million homes in late 2011 are not now selling for $1.8 million. So don’t play 2006 and do a refi cash out and spend that “banked” gain!

I don’t think even an earthquake would do damage to the SF economy (unless it was so catastrophic the whole city is leveled, but then Silicon Valley and the entire country would tank as well). If anything an earthquake would be a huge opportunity for developers because it would clear out the old stock of shaky stick frame Victorians.

Most Victorians are pretty solid and survived the 1906 earthquake just fine. Large quake is much more likely to wipe out the housing stock built in the 50’s, particularly apartment buildings with garages underneath.

Only to the extent the Vics have new foundations and have been fully seismically retrofitted (which many have not). Buildings from the 50s were generally built with steel in their foundations; pre-war buildings were not. In general, housing stock from the 50s will fare much better than Victorians in a quake.

I think we will find some of the greatest damage occuring in buildings from the 20’s. These make up many of the corner “soft-story” buildings and were not built to withstand a sizeable earthquake. Although SF is known as a city of Victorians, much of our housing consists of homes and multi-unit buildings built during the roaring 20’s. As with the 1906 earthquake, fire will also be a factor in destroying a material portion of the city if we were to have a major earthquake (89 was not the “big one”).

Most of the surviving Victorians are on hills (which is why they survived 1906) and will do fine. The newer (whether 1920s or 1970s) buildings on infill in the Marina, FiDi, South Beach, etc. may not be so lucky. Even western SoMa suffers from severe liquifaction risk: San Francisco is Sinking!

(Disclaimer: I am *not* a streetsblog person 🙂 this is just a particularly good article.)

$1,300 psf is nothing for new construction it seems. Check out the recent sale of a unit at the once maligned and ridiculed One Rincon which went for $2,070 psf just yesterday. I believe the unit was owned by a realtor named Paul Hwang who used to post here.

fyi – Yes, the side facing east is brutal, but it will be totally hidden behind a new building on the adjacent parcel at some point, probably within the next 5-10 years, probably on the sooner side than the later side. An preliminary project application was filed in March for 1740 Market for an 85′ tall building consistent with the zoning (and the height of 8 Octavia). So this blank property line facade is a temporary condition. Unlike say, the Thom Maynes Federal Building which is skyline monstrosity never to be hidden.